Karnataka High Court orders land acquisition officer to pay ₹1 lakh for harassing 102-year-old man

The Karnataka High Court has directed a Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to a 102-year-old man for failing to consider his request to refer his claim for inadequate land compensation to a court [B Ramaiah v State of Karnataka].

Justice R Nataraj said the SLAO, who was in office when the petitioner gave his representation in 2022, shall pay the compensation within a month or the drawing officer shall deduct the same from the officer's salary.

The Court said the officer harassed the senior citizen by not considering his request for referring the dispute against inadequate compensation to a court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from 2005.

"The respondent No.2 appears to have not taken any steps to refer the dispute. This therefore shows the apparent negligence on the part of the respondent No.2 in not complying with the statutory duty prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and also the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli," the Court said.

The State in 2004 had acquired 29 guntas of the petitioner's land in Bengaluru Rural district for the purpose of forming an alternate road to the international airport at Devanahalli from Bettakote Village.

Contending that the land was of more value than the State-determined compensation, the petitioner asked the SLAO to refer the dispute to a civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

He submitted two representations requesting the SLAO in June and October 2005 to do the same. The SLAO, however, did not budge.

The petitioner then approached the High Court which directed him to move a petition before the civil court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Devanahalli in 2007.

The civil court in 2022 directed the SLAO to refer the dispute within 30 days. The petitioner then submitted the copy of the order in two representations in 2022 and 2025. The SLAO still did not take steps.

The petitioner then approached the High Court to direct the SLAO to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In the order passed on August 31, the Court took a strong exception to the officer's conduct.

"In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 is liable to be hauled up for playing around with the life of the petitioner so despicably," the bench said.

It directed the officer to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of one month.

Advocate GA Srikante appeared for the petitioner.

High Court Government Pleader Pooja M Koorse appeared for the State and SLAO.

[Read Order]